Follow by Email

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who decided to support Obama's nuclear deal with Khamenei, should be concerned when he receives the blessing of Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "One Congressman’s Iran," Cohen begins:

"Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan and the longest-serving Jewish member of the House, said something important this week: 'In my view, the only anchors in public life are to dig deeply into the facts and consult broadly and then to say what you believe.'"

Levin dug deeply into the nuclear deal with Iran? Heck no! He couldn't even bother waiting to learn what appears in the secret side agreements between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran, never seen by John Kerry or Ernest Moniz, which lay out the terms for IAEA inspections of Iranian military sites, such as Parchin, where nuclear detonator tests were conducted. And those terms are not pretty: Iran itself will be relied upon to supply requested soil samples to the IAEA.

Cohen continues:

"Levin’s reflection led him to the sober, accurate conclusion that the agreement is 'the best way to achieve' the goal of preventing Iran from advancing toward a nuclear weapon, an outcome that will make Israel, the Middle East and the world 'far more secure.' Not the ideal way, the perfect way, or a foolproof way, but, in the real world of ineradicable Iranian nuclear know-how, the best way attainable. That is also the view of other parties to the deal — the not insignificant or unserious powers of Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany."

"Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014, he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was also in the room.

According to both lawmakers, Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions.

'He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,' Sanchez told me in an interview. 'He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.'"

Shame on you, Sander Levin! You might be a friend of Obama, and true blue to the Democratic Party, but you are no friend of Israel at a time when the Jewish State is again being threatened with extinction by a country being handed a nuclear arsenal within 15 years at most!

And then there was Kristof's "famous" New York Times op-ed, "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun," which described a 1,700-mile, magical mystery tour across Iran in 2012, accompanied by his son and daughter. In a journey akin to Borat's excursion across the US, Kristof relayed profound anecdotes from his chance meetings with ordinary Iranians. Discussions with members of Iran's persecuted Baha'i minority? None. Exchanges of views with Iran's oppressed Kurds? No way. Dialogue with Iranian homosexuals (homosexuality is an offense punishable by hanging in Iran)? Nada. A visit to Evin Prison to check the well-being of political dissidents languishing in its dungeons? Nope. Not even an off-the-beaten-track side trip to witness the stoning to death of a woman accused of adultery.

"The U.S. didn’t get all it wanted (and neither did Iran) in an imperfect compromise. True, we didn’t achieve anywhere, anytime inspections, yet the required inspections program is still among the most intrusive ever."

On the basis of the abovementioned trip to Iran with his children, Kristof would further have us know:

"I would guess that after the supreme leader dies, Iran will begin a process of change like that in China after Mao died."

Got it. On the basis of Kristof's "guess," the US should risk allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapons arsenal within another 15 years - much less time if the mullahs cheat, which they will. Combine that capability with an end to the prohibition on Iran's purchase or building of ICBMs within eight years and what have you got? A nuclear threat against Washington and New York.

Re unlocking "tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets and new oil revenues" which will pass to extremist groups, Kristof writes:

"True, but that will happen anyway. Remember that this agreement includes Europe, Russia and China as parties. Even if Congress rejects the agreement, sanctions will erode and Iran will get an infusion of cash."

Why will it happen "anyway" if the US maintains the sanctions regime and demands that those seeking access to the American banking system also toe the line? In fact, it wouldn't happen "anyway." On the other hand, the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office has another year and a half as president, and he has amply demonstrated that he is not capable of saying no to Khamenei.

Concerning Iranian calls for the extermination of Israel, Kristof writes:

"If I lived in Tel Aviv, would I be nervous? Sure. But I’d be even more nervous without this deal, which reduces the chance that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon in the next decade. That’s why five former U.S. ambassadors to Israel endorsed the accord. (It’s also notable that American Jews are more in favor of the agreement than the American public as a whole.)"

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

"US Secretary of State John Kerry told a Republican lawmaker on Tuesday he did not know whether Iran sought to destroy the United States.

The exchange, during Kerry’s latest testimony to Congress on the July 14 nuclear accord between world powers and Iran, appeared to catch Kerry off-guard.

'Is it the policy of the ayatollah, if you can answer for him, that Iran wants to destroy the United States?' Texas Republican Lloyd 'Ted' Poe asked Kerry during the latter’s Tuesday appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 'Is that still their policy, as far as you know?'

Kerry responded: 'I don’t believe they’ve said that. I think they’ve said ‘Death to America,’ in their chants, but I have not seen this specific.'

'Well, I kind of take that to mean that they want us dead,' Poe replied. 'That would seem like that would be their policy. He said that. You don’t think that’s their policy? I’m not mincing words. Do you think it’s their policy to destroy us?'

'I think they have a policy of opposition to us and a great enmity, but I have no specific knowledge of a plan by Iran to actually destroy us.'"

"In a speech to parliament, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday vowed to destroy the U.S., which he held responsible for distorting the world’s values and starting indiscriminate wars.

According to semi-official news agency Fars, Khamenei said,'Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist. … This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought. … This requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and need for great strides.'"

Would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is still lost in space. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "For the Mideast, It’s Still 1979," Friedman writes of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran:

"Will the nuclear deal empower the more moderate/pragmatic majority inside Iran rather than the hard-line Revolutionary Guards Corps? The reason to be worried is that the moderates don’t control Iran’s nuclear program or its military/intelligence complex; the hard-line minority does. The reason to be hopeful is the majority’s aspiration to reintegrate with the world forced the hard-liners to grudgingly accept this deal."

Well, as usual, Friedman is wrong on all counts. Although the Revolutionary Guards indeed control Iran's nuclear program, their power over Iran is far greater than that. As we are informed by The Council on Foreign Relations in a June 2013 article entitled "Iran's Revolutionary Guards" by Greg Bruno, Jayshree Bajoria, and Jonathan Masters:

"Political clout and military might are not the only attributes of today's Revolutionary Guard Corps; it is also a major financial player. The Los Angeles Times estimated in 2007 that the group, which was tasked with rebuilding the country after the Iran-Iraq War, now has ties to more than one hundred companies that control roughly $12 billion in construction and engineering capital. CFR Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh has linked the Guards to university laboratories, weapons manufacturers, and companies connected to nuclear technology. And [the Carnegie Endowment's Frederic] Wehrey writes that 'the IRGC has extended its influence into virtually every sector of the Iranian market.' The Guards-controlled engineering firm Khatam al-Anbia, for instance, has been awarded more than 750 government contracts for infrastructure, oil, and gas projects, he says."

"Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have done very well out of international sanctions -- and if a nuclear deal is done in Vienna this week under which those sanctions are lifted, they are likely to do better still.

The Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), created by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini during Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, is more than just a military force. It is also an industrial empire with political clout that has grown exponentially in the last decade, benefiting from the favor of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, himself a former guardsman and, most recently, from the opportunities created by Western sanctions.

. . . .

"They control major companies, and businesses in Iran such as tourism, transportation, energy, construction, telecommunication and Internet,' said an Iranian official in Tehran who asked not to be named.

'Lifting sanctions will boost the economy; it will help them to gain more money.'

. . . .

'Boosting the economy will increase the IRGC's influence over politics and the economy because it will strengthen the hardline establishment,' said one Iranian oil executive."

Or simply stated, Friedman's contention that "The reason to be hopeful is the majority’s aspiration to reintegrate with the world forced the hard-liners to grudgingly accept this deal" is pure rubbish. The IRGC stands to benefit mightily by partially accepting this deal (they still do not accept inspections of "military" sites), which will enrich its coffers with tens of billions of dollars that had been impounded by sanctions and enhance its power throughout Iran.

"This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven."

Sorry, Chris, but I agree with Mike Huckabee.

Chris, are you even aware that Iran has supplied Hezbollah in Lebanon with 130,000 missiles, all pointed at Israel, which is approximately the size of New Jersey? Sure, they are not nuclear-tipped, but over the past several years, Iran was forced to cut back on aid to Hezbollah owing to budgetary constraints stemming from international sanctions. Thanks to Obama, those sanctions will now be removed, and as even acknowledged by Susan Rice, significant funds for arms will once again be flowing to Hezbollah when Iran receives more than $120 billion for signing Obama's nuclear deal. Those Hezbollah missiles will not be used against Israel? Nasrallah will launch them in a blink of an eye if he receives instructions to do so from Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei.

And what about Iran itself, which is being given the right to acquire or manufacture a nuclear arsenal within 15 years pursuant to Obama's nuclear deal - if the mullahs don't cheat before that time, which they will?

"Former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told a Hezbollah-affiliated outlet that he was confident that the 'forged and temporary Israeli entity' would be wiped off the map, the state-run IRNA news agency reported. According to the report, Rafsanjani, often described by Western media as a moderate in Iranian politics, said that Israel was an alien existence forged into the body of a nation which would eventually be destroyed."

No mention of Rafsanjani by Chris.

By the way, Chris, did you happen to notice that US Secretary of State John Kerry is avoiding a stopover in Israel next week, when he visits Egypt and Qatar? That's because of overwhelming disapproval of the nuclear deal among Israelis and the likelihood that he would be met in Israel with massive protest demonstrations. As recently reported by The Jerusalem Post, 78 percent of Israelis believe the nuclear deal will "endanger Israel;" 71 percent think the deal will "bring Iran closer to a military nuclear capability;" and 47 percent "support an Israeli military strike on Iran if it would be necessary to prevent the Islamic state from getting nuclear weapons." You see, Israelis know more than a little about what's good or bad for them, particularly when it involves their continued existence on this planet.

In short, before shooting off his mouth at Mike Huckabee, Cillizza would have done well to learn some basic facts.

Monday, July 27, 2015

US Secretary of State John Kerry will be traveling to Egypt and Qatar next week, to sell Obama's controversial nuclear deal with Iran, but he plans to steer his swift boat clear of Israel. Why not Israel? As reported in a Ynetnews article entitled "Kerry to visit region to discuss Iran deal, but skip Israel" by Yitzhak Benhorin:

"When asked why Kerry won't be visiting Israel, [US State Department spokesman John] Kirby said the secretary has spoken to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu many times over the past few weeks to discuss the agreement.

The latest phone call between the two was on July 16, after the agreement was signed."

The real reason why Kerry is not coming to is Israel is because of overwhelming disapproval of the nuclear deal among Israelis and the likelihood that he would be met in Israel with massive protest demonstrations.

In all fairness to Kerry, however, he also declined another dinner engagement in Damascus with his "dear friend" Bashar al-Assad.

And now we have the Obama administration begetting yet another international calamity, this time involving the Middle East's 30 million stateless Kurds, who have long befriended the United States.

In a New York Times article entitled "Turkey and U.S. Agree on Plan to Clear ISIS From Strip of Syria’s North" by Anne Barnard, Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt, we are told of a plan to clear "Islamic State militants from a 60-mile-long strip of northern Syria along the Turkish border." However, we are also informed that this plan comes at the expense of Syria's Kurds:

"In another complication, gains for such insurgents would come at the expense of Kurdish militias that are already fighting the Islamic State farther east with American air support and that have been eyeing the same territory.

. . . .

Syrian Arab insurgents would gain at the expense of the People’s Protection Units, a Kurdish militia known by the initials Y.P.G. that is seeking to take the same territory from the east. While the United States views the group as one of its best partners on the ground, Turkey sees it as a threat; it is affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a militant group whose longstanding conflict with Turkey has flared anew in recent days."

Syrian Arab insurgents would gain at the expense of the Kurds? Oh really. As noted by this article:

"[O]nly 60 Syrian insurgents having been formally vetted and trained by the United States under a Pentagon program, questions also remain about which Syrian insurgents and how many will be involved in the new operation. A larger number of rebels that American officials deem relatively moderate have been trained in a covert C.I.A. program, but on the battlefield they are often enmeshed or working in concert with more hard-line Islamist insurgents."

Saturday, July 25, 2015

"The adults patrolling the playpen of Republican politics are appalled that we’ve become a society where it’s O.K. to make fun of veterans, to call anyone who isn’t rich a loser, to cast an entire group of newly arrived strivers as rapists and shiftless criminals.

Somewhere, we crossed a line — from our mothers’ modesty to strutting braggadocio, from dutiful decorum to smashing all the china in the room, from respecting a base set of facts to a trumpeting of willful ignorance."

"Government investigators said Friday that they had discovered classified information on the private email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while secretary of state, stating unequivocally that those secrets never should have been stored outside of secure government computer systems.

Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.

But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now."

It sounds like Hillary could well be facing a criminal investigation by the Justice Department while she runs for president. But why should this bother Democrats or interfere with her $2.5 billion campaign? "Incredibly hazy with flowing ice"? No, not a description of Hillary, but rather of Pluto, following the New Horizons flyby.

Trump versus Hillary in 2016? Might this be an instance where America gets what it deserves? Bottom line: I don't envy anyone who stands to inherit the global (Middle East bedlam) and domestic (some $20 trillion of federal debt) mess that Obama will be leaving for his successor.

"On Monday, Vice-Chairman of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Mansour Haqiqatpour reiterated Tehran's strong opposition to the inspection of Parchin military center for the third time.

'Despite Iran's goodwill measures, the IAEA has unfortunately once again requested visiting the Parchin military site,' Haqiqatpour lamented.

'In recent years, Iran has provided the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with several times of access to the Parchin military site, and the agency's inspectors have visited it and found it completely clean of any evidence of nuclear activity,' the lawmaker stressed.

In response to the recent remarks of IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano about the necessity of more access to Parchin non-nuclear military center, Haqiqatpour emphasized, 'The Islamic Republic has explicitly announced its positions in this regard frequently, and I do believe that the country would not allow access to the military site, given the strong opposition shown by the Supreme Leader.'

Senior Iranian officials had regularly announced that inspection of the country's military sites are one of its redlines."

However, when one goes to Mr. King's opinion piece, one is told of two comments made by Israeli rabbis. Mr. King also refers to an offensive tweet by Judy Mozes. I would note, however, that Mozes is not a politician, but rather a television personality and the wife of Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom. Her disgraceful attempt at humor was made at a time when her husband was out of the country, and created an uproar throughout Israel. As reported by The Jerusalem Post:

"Followers of Mozes responded immediately to the tweet with criticism, such as: '@JudyMozes no doubt racism has no connection to brains.'

Regarding Mr. King's charge that Michael Oren is engaging in "racially charged affronts," this is pure rubbish. Mr. King writes:

U.S.-born Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States, has done his own anti-Obama number. Citing President Obama’s upbringing, Oren suggested in a series of recent articles in Foreign Policy that the president’s “abandonment” by his mother’s “two Muslim husbands” created in him a desire for “acceptance by their co-religionists” that has now influenced his foreign policy. Conspiracy theorists and birthers could hardly have said it better — Obama’s Christianity notwithstanding.

I would note that Islam is a religion and not a race, and although one can certainly argue that Oren's "psychoanalysis" of Obama was misplaced and absurd, this is not racism. I would further note that I served in the army with Michael Oren, and he is no racist.

Mr. King would also have us believe that Netanyahu's most recent appearance before the US Congress in opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran was racist:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress drew rave reviews from his Republican hosts and most — but not all — of Israel’s supporters. Many members of the 46-member Congressional Black Caucus were outraged that Netanyahu would go behind the back of the White House and arrange with Republicans to use the U.S. Capitol as the stage to challenge the president’s Iranian nuclear negotiations. Several chose to stay away.

Well, it has been argued by many in Israel that Netanyahu's speech was ineffective, disrespectful and counterproductive, but where was there any reference to race in Netanyahu's speech? Netanyahu wouldn't have gone to Congress if, for example, a white president was seeking to sign a nuclear deal with a country that calls for the eradication of Israel every week? Sorry, but this is an obscene allegation which, to the best of my knowledge, has not even been made by Israel's left-leaning press, which is implacably opposed to Netanyahu. In addition, I never heard any such allegation from Israel's sizable Ethiopian community.

In short, I believe that Mr. King's opinion piece is ridiculous; however, I also understand that it is an opinion piece with which readers can agree or disagree. On the other hand, to state on WaPo's homepage that "Israeli politicians [in the plural] have launched racially charged affronts toward Obama over Iran" is going too far, and I believe that even Mr. King, if asked, would acknowledge as much.

You will recall Obama's "red line" concerning the use of chemical weapons by Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad. Obama turned to Congress for authorization to act against Syria, but then asked the leaders of Congress, in his aforementioned September 10, 2013 "Address to the Nation," "to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path." And indeed, a "deal" was struck with Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons stockpiles, pursuant to which Obama boasted at a press conference at Camp David just two months ago:

"Assad gave up his chemical weapons. And that’s not speculation on our part. That, in fact, has been confirmed by the organization internationally, that is charged with eliminating chemical weapons."

"One year after the West celebrated the removal of Syria’s arsenal as a foreign-policy success, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the regime didn’t give up all of the chemical weapons it was supposed to.

An examination of last year’s international effort to rid Syria of chemical weapons, based on interviews with many of the inspectors and U.S. and European officials who were involved, shows the extent to which the Syrian regime controlled where inspectors went, what they saw and, in turn, what they accomplished. That happened in large part because of the ground rules under which the inspectors were allowed into the country, according to the inspectors and officials.

. . . .

Under the terms of their deployment, the inspectors had access only to sites that the Assad regime had declared were part of its chemical-weapons program. The U.S. and other powers had the right to demand access to undeclared sites if they had evidence they were part of the chemical-weapons program. But that right was never exercised, in part, inspectors and Western officials say, because their governments didn’t want a standoff with the regime."

Well, Obama has just concluded a similar deal with Iran, Assad's patron, and Obama would have us believe that IAEA inspections and monitoring devices will prevent the mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons. Only this time, Obama made an end run around Congress and first sought United Nations Security Council approval. "I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress"? Yeah, right.

"The Obama administration ducked concerns Thursday raised by senators in a public hearing that Iran would be responsible for collecting its own soil samples to turn over to the International Atomic Energy Agency for inspection of suspected nuclear sites.

Officials would neither confirm or deny the claims, made twice during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, which heard testimony from Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew."

Trust Iran to monitor itself? It just doesn't get any more horrifying.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Appearing on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" on Tuesday, President Obama publicly spewed anti-Semitism, albeit using "progressive" code words, while seeking to drum up support for his nuclear deal with Iran. Obama declared (my emphasis in red):

"I guarantee you, if people feel strongly about making sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, without us going to war, and that is expressed to Congress, then people will believe in that. And the same is true on every single issue. If people are engaged, eventually the political system responds. Despite the money, despite the lobbyists, it still responds."

The "money"? Jewish money, of course. The lobbyists? AIPAC, of course.

A minute earlier, Obama also stated (my emphasis in red):

"This is an example of where we have a huge issue of war and peace. Either we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon through diplomacy, or potentially we have a military option. You’ve got a bunch of talking heads and pundits, and folks who are not going to be making sacrifices, if in fact you end up in a conflict, who are reprising some of the same positions that we saw during the Iraq war, not asking tough questions. And if they are not hearing from citizens, then we end up making bad choices."

"Folks who are not going to be making sacrifices"? The Jews, of course. Obama would have us know that Jews don't serve in the military, but instead only seek to buy Congress with their money.

Or stated otherwise, there is no agreement with Iran, and Iran will continue to promote terror throughout the Middle East.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Backing Up Our Wager With Iran," a sycophantic Thomas Friedman praises Obama's deal with Khamenei. Friedman writes:

"[T]he diplomatic option structured by the Obama team — if properly implemented and augmented by muscular diplomacy — serves core American interests better than any options I hear coming from the deal’s critics: It prevents Iran from producing the fissile material to break out with a nuclear weapon for 15 years and creates a context that could empower the more pragmatic forces inside Iran over time — at the price of constraining, but not eliminating, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and sanctions relief that will strengthen Tehran as a regional power."

The deal "prevents Iran from producing the fissile material to break out with a nuclear weapon for 15 years"? Tell me, Tom, do you truly believe that Iran will abide by the terms of the agreement over the course of 15 years and will not try to cheat in the interim? As observed by Michael Makovsky in a Weekly Standard article entitled "Iran’s Cheating":

"Iran has a long and proud history of cheating on its international nuclear agreements. Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who once monitored Iran’s nuclear program, observed in 2013: 'If there is no undeclared installation today . . . it will be the first time in 20 years that Iran doesn’t have one.' Indeed, Iran’s main enrichment facility at Natanz was a covert facility that was only discovered in 2002, by the Mojahedin-e-Khalq, an Iranian opposition group. A year later, the European Union struck a deal with Iran to prevent it from spinning its centrifuges and beginning to enrich uranium. Yet for much of the deal, Iran was busy mastering its uranium supply chain. 'While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran,” wrote Iran’s nuclear negotiator and now president Hassan Rouhani, 'we were installing equipment in parts of the [uranium conversion] facility at Isfahan. . . . In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan.' In 2009, the world learned of yet another clandestine enrichment plant, under a mountain at Fordow, that Iran was trying to construct.

. . . .

In the past year alone Iran has violated its international agreements at least three times. First, even though the interim Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) prohibited Iran from enriching uranium in any centrifuges that were not in use at the time the deal went into effect in January 2014, last November the IAEA caught Iran operating a new centrifuge—worse still, it was an advanced IR-5 model. Second, the JPOA required Iran to process any low-enriched uranium it produced during the deal’s term from the gaseous form used for enrichment into a solid that can be used as reactor fuel, so that it would not be readily available for further enrichment and potential breakout. As of February 2015, Iran had an excess of some 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, in violation of the deal’s terms. Third, in parallel to the JPOA, the IAEA and Iran signed a Framework for Cooperation under which Iran agreed to answer outstanding IAEA concerns about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. Iran answered only one question to the IAEA’s satisfaction and, for the past six months, has been stonewalling on the rest."

So, suddenly Iran is going to stop cheating? Yeah, right.

Friedman goes on to say that Obama is "betting that [the deal] will empower Iran’s moderate faction and put the country on a more favorable societal trajectory." The "moderate faction"? Oh, Friedman must be referring Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, "famous" for hanging gay men and bragging during the 2013 presidential election how he lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Tom Terrific suggest four things to increase the odds that Obama's "bet goes our way." First, Friedman calls for Obama to "appoint a respected military figure to oversee every aspect of implementing this deal." Appoint a "respected general"? That will help a lot, particularly when Iran is refusing to allow Americans to inspect its nuclear sites.

Second, Friedman says: "Congress should pass a resolution authorizing this and future presidents to use force to prevent Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapons state. Iran must know now that the U.S. president is authorized to destroy — without warning or negotiation — any attempt by Tehran to build a bomb." Obama use force against Iran? Iran already knows that Obama is incapable of this.

Third, Friedman would have America "[f]ocus on the Iranian people" and "reach out to them in every way — visas, exchanges and scholarships." America wants more Iranians, handpicked by the Khamenei regime, in its midst? Good luck!

Fourth, Friedman declares that America should "[a]void a black-and-white view of the Middle East." He explains, "The idea that Iran is everywhere our enemy . . . is a mistake." Oh really? Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei declared on Saturday that US policies are "180 degrees" opposed to those of Iran, and that "even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant US will not change." Khamenei's speech was accompanied by chants of "Death to America!"

When will someone from Obama's inner circle burst the president's bubble? It certainly won't come from Tom Friedman, who lacks either the integrity or the intelligence to inform the president that he made a fool's wager.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

I sent the following op-ed to The Washington Post earlier today. Michael Larabee, their op-ed editor, kindly read my submission and just informed me that they're going to pass on the piece. Humor me and take a gander . . .

President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have less than a sanguine relationship. Obama’s disdain for Netanyahu is best exemplified by a 2011 open microphone faux pas in which America’s president told French President Sarkozy, "You are fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you." Examination, however, of the nuclear deal signed by the P5+1 with Iran in Vienna should transcend the enmity between Obama and Netanyahu. Israeli’s from Left to Right are frightened by this agreement with the mullahs.

As recently reported by The Jerusalem Post, 78 percent of Israelis believe the nuclear deal will "endanger Israel;" 71 percent think the deal will "bring Iran closer to a military nuclear capability;" and 47 percent "support an Israeli military strike on Iran if it would be necessary to prevent the Islamic state from getting nuclear weapons." Moreover, Israelis, most of whom have come under rocket and missile fire over the course of their lifetimes, generally have a good idea of what's good or bad for them, particularly when it involves existential concerns.

Why are Israelis more concerned by Iranian chants of marg bar Esra’il (“Death to Israel!”) than Americans are worried by chants of marg bar omrika (“Death to America!”) coming even after the Vienna agreement? Obviously, Israel is closer to Iran, and Israel is already in range of Iranian missiles, but the answer is more complex. Ze’ev Maghen, a professor of Persian Language and Islamic History at Shalem College and former chairman of the Department of Middle East Studies at Bar-Ilan University, noted in a 2009 Commentary article entitled “Eradicating the 'Little Satan'”:

“[T]here is no rational reason for any eruption of hostilities between Iran and Israel. The two countries do not even share a common border, and their national and economic interests are not in conflict. To the contrary, both have traditionally conceived their ‘frontline’ adversaries to be Arab states, and history has time and again thrown them into each other's arms, both before and even after the Islamic revolution of 1979.”

However, Prof. Maghen went on to observe in his article:

“The analysts and pundits are thus indeed correct in asserting that the Iranians do not really ‘mean it’ [i.e., Death to Israel!]. They fail to realize, however, that this is the very reason why they may well ‘do it.’ By casting an entire people as a parasitic infestation, by demonizing, delegitimizing, and dehumanizing them at home, in school, in the mosque and in the media, the quarter-century-old routine of Israel-hatred, added to 1,400 years of traditional Islamic anti-Semitism, has prepared in the minds of Iranians and their neighboring coreligionists the moral ground for the eradication of the state of Israel.”

Quite apart from the nuclear threat that Israelis expect to be facing from Iran, there is also the “conventional” arms threat of some 130,000 rockets and missiles already supplied by Iran to Hezbollah for use against Israel. When sanctions against Iran are removed, and Iran is again able to accelerate the flow of advanced weaponry to its proxy in Lebanon, another war Israel and Hezbollah is a near certainty. The size of New Jersey, Israel will not be able to wait out a missile onslaught of this dimension, and Israeli ground forces will be forced to enter Lebanon to quell the barrage.

Although the Obama administration appears at a loss to explain the terms of the P5+1’s agreement with Iran, we can be certain that the deal will kindle a Middle East nuclear arms race, make another round of war between Israel and Hezbollah a near certainty, and enhance Iran’s ability to make good on its threats to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Dear Congress, Israel implores you to say no to this so-called agreement, whose terms remain a mystery and source of contention.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You have emphasized that this was just a deal about Iran’s nuclear program. It wasn’t intended to get at anything else.

And yet, as you know, there is concern that Iran will take some of that money that they’re going to get from the frozen assets that are now being unfrozen, that they will use it on — some of it to create mischief, more mischief in the area, give some of it to Hezbollah, some of it to the Shiite militias in Yemen and so forth.

JOHN KERRY: Right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What is the U.S. prepared to do about that? How do you see that playing out?

JOHN KERRY: Well, we’re going to clamp down. They’re not allowed to do that.

They’re not allowed to do that, outside even of this agreement. There is a U.N. resolution that specifically applies to them not being allowed to transfer to Hezbollah. They are specifically not allowed under another U.N. resolution to transfer to the Shia militia in Iraq. They are specifically not allowed to transfer to the Houthis.

And I will be meeting with all of the Gulf states in about two weeks in Doha, and we are laying down — and Secretary Carter is meeting with them in Riyadh next week. We are laying down the steps we will take to work with our friends and allies in the region to push back against this behavior.

WOLF BLITZER: I just want to be precise. Once the money starts flowing in, it's their money, correctly - as I pointed out, as you pointed out - it's their money. They can do with it whatever they want. If they want to give a billion dollars of weapons to Bashar al-Assad or a billion dollars to Houthi rebels in Yemen . . .

SUSAN RICE: No, they can’t do that, Wolf, because they’ll still be under an arms embargo that would prevent them from sending weapons anywhere.

WOLF BLITZER: So what if they're not sending weapons, what if they're just sending money?

"Renowned political analyst Dr. Mohammad Marandi said that Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told him in Vienna last week that Iran would continue to supply arms to the regional nations even under a final nuclear deal.

'When we were in Vienna, the Arab reporters asked me if Iran would continue arms aids to its regional allies under the final deal, and when I asked Mr. Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, the question, he told me that Iran would continue the arms supply policy,' Marandi, a Tehran University Professor, said during a live interview with the English-language channel, press tv, on Monday night.

'Mr. Zarif told me that Iran would continue its arms aid to the regional nations and he told me that it would be in violation of the UN Security Council resolution (that was adopted earlier today), but it would not be in opposition to the agreement (also known as the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action),' he reiterated adding that Zarif had not asked him to remain unnamed when reflecting the answer to the reporters."

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Good Deal for Israel," Chuck Freilich, a former deputy head of Israel's National Security Council, informs us regarding Obama's nuclear deal with Iran

"The nuclear issue has not been resolved, but postponed for at least 10 years. When the agreement expires, or in the event of a violation, the international community may have to resume its efforts. Iran has not given up its long-term nuclear aspirations."

"Postponed for at least 10 years"? Hey, Chuck, do you honestly believe that Iran will not cheat on the deal over the course of the next decade? Admittedly, Khamenei may delay cheating on the deal during the next 12 months, i.e. until he receives the lion's share of the more than $120 billion frozen by international sanctions. But 10 years? Not a chance.

Also worth observing that as reported by The Jerusalem Post, 78 percent of Israelis believe the nuclear deal will "endanger Israel;" 71 percent think the deal will "bring Iran closer to a military nuclear capability;" and 47 percent "support an Israeli military strike on Iran if it would be necessary to prevent the Islamic state from getting nuclear weapons."

But heck, what do Israelis know about what's good or bad for them, particularly when it involves their continued existence on this planet?

US Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz had a remarkable interview on "Face the Nation" yesterday concerning the disastrous nuclear deal struck with Iran. As reported by CBS News:

"In an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" that aired Sunday, Kerry argued that having 'anytime, anywhere' access to all of Iran's nuclear sites was 'not on the table' and a term 'I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating' - even though, as host John Dickerson pointed out, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said in April that the international community would have 'anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access.'

'This is a term that, honestly, I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating. It was not on the table. There's no such thing in arms control as anytime, anywhere. There isn't any nation in the world, none that has an anytime, anywhere,' Kerry said. 'We always were negotiating was an end to the interminable delays that people had previously.'"

But more to the point, why shouldn't "anytime, anywhere" have been "on the table"? If in fact it wasn't "on the table," John ("Assad is my dear friend") Kerry doesn't have a clue how to negotiate a deal and should resign immediately.

"The Times should have given more thought to the title of Cohen's op-ed. As I tried to illustrate in my e-mail to Clark Hoyt, there is a long anti-Semitic history of depicting Jews as ugly voracious spiders. Netanyahu is no spider, and Obama is no butterfly. The title could only serve to inflame hatred."

Rosenthal replied:

"It was not a good headline, I agree. By the time this column gets to the times website it has already been published in the IHT [International Herald Tribune] on paper and online. This is not an excuse. It is an explanation. The headline should have been changes there [sic]."

Problem resolved? Not a chance. In December 2011, Thomas Friedman wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir,” in which he declared:

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Yup, the money of the "Israel lobby," according to Friedman, controls Congress.

And then in February 2012, The New York Times published an op-ed by Roger Cohen entitled "The Dilemmas of Jewish Power." Does this title remind you of something? It should. In a 1935 speech to the Reichstag introducing the Nuremberg Laws, Hitler stated:

"The third [law] is an attempt to regulate by law [the Jewish] problem, which, should this attempt fail, must then be handed over by law to the National-Socialist Party for a final solution."

After I complained to Rosenthal about the title of this op-ed by Cohen, it was quickly changed to "The Dilemmas of Israeli Power."

Well, it is now July 2015, and Maureen Dowd has just one-upped (one-downed?) Cohen and Friedman. Dowd concludes her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hi-Ho, Lone Ranger" by informing us (my emphasis in red):

"Obama has always radiated the smug air that he was right and any other positions were illogical. But it is gratifying when aimed at the obnoxious Republicans and more obnoxious Bibi.

Republicans were never going to go for the Iran deal. Their apocalyptic statements were written well in advance and they just had to hit 'Send' followed by a fund-raising appeal to Jewish donors.

Obama is gambling that he won’t hurt his party and that in 10 years Iran will be a better member of the international community. But he can’t do worse as an oracle of the Middle East than the conservative warmongers who ravaged the region."

Notice that Dowd directly refers to "Jewish donors" and does not even bother pointing an accusing finger at the "Israel lobby" or AIPAC. No mention by Dowd that billionaire George Soros, a Jew, is lobbying hard for the nuclear deal with Iran through the various "progressive" organizations that he funds, e.g., J Street and MoveOn. Also no mention by Dowd that the nuclear deal was negotiated by Jewish social worker Wendy Sherman, who "aced" the nuclear negotiations with North Korea. And no mention by Dowd that Obama had the overwhelming support of American Jews in both 2008 and 2012.

But tell me, Maureen, why shouldn't Jews be concerned by the daily calls by the Khamenei regime for the annihilation of Israel, i.e. a second Holocaust? Jews should have believed Hitler, but they shouldn't believe Khamenei? And is it only the Jews who should be concerned by the very real prospect of a second Holocaust.

And when Khamenei's speeches following Obama's nuclear deal with Iran are still accompanied by calls for "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" as happened yesterday, is it prudent to allow Iran to arm itself with ballistic missiles capable of hitting the US after eight years, and to allow Iran to build a nuclear arsenal after ten years (provided of course that all of this doesn't happen sooner if the mullahs cheat - which they will)?

Obama "can’t do worse as an oracle of the Middle East than the conservative warmongers who ravaged the region"? Let's see if Maureen still believes that after the first nuclear-tipped Iranian ICBM lands in Washington.

Sorry, Maureen. Congressional opposition to Obama's deal with Iran is not about "Jewish donors." Rather, it is about common sense. Republicans and Bibi are "obnoxious"? Have a look in the mirror, dear. What you will see is something that is "noxious" as opposed to "obnoxious."

About the 24 days given to Iran to accede to IAEA requests for inspection, Charles Krauthammer noted in his Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Worse than we could have imagined":

"Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee — on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors’ request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.

And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical."

"This is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere. And by the way, if we identify an undeclared site that we’re suspicious about, we’re going to be keeping eyes on it, so we’re going to be monitoring what the activity is, and that’s going to be something that will be evidence if we think some funny business is going on there, that we can then present to the international community."

But who is Obama's "we"? And if the president were to "present" evidence of "funny business" to the international community," what would the international community do with it? Laugh?

Needless to say, the president failed to reveal that there would be no Americans participating in the IAEA inspection teams. But let's suppose that Iran finally grants access to a suspected illicit site after 60 days, i.e. after the site has been scrubbed clean as a whistle: Does anyone really believe that Russia and China will facilitate the return of sanctions owing to the delay? Not a chance? Will Obama go to war over the infraction? Also, not a chance. The Iranians know Obama has no stomach for it.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "On Iran, Congress should just say no," Eric Edelman and Ray Takeyh today make the case for rejecting Obama's deal with the Khamenei regime:

"A careful examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reveals that it concedes an enrichment capacity that is too large; sunset clauses that are too short; a verification regime that is too leaky; and enforcement mechanisms that are too suspect.

. . . .

The JCPOA stands as one of the most technologically permissive arms-control agreements in history. All is not lost, however, and with sensible amendments the accord can be strengthened. The United States should return to the table and insist that after the expiration of the sunset clause, the P5+1 and Iran should vote on whether to extend the agreement for an additional 10 years. A majority vote every 10 years should determine the longevity of the agreement, not an arbitrary time-clock. Further, the JCPOA has usefully stressed that all of Iran’s spent fuel from its heavy-water reactor will be shipped out permanently. A similar step should be taken with Iran’s enriched uranium. The revised agreement should also limit Iran to the first-generation centrifuges and rely on 'anytime, anywhere access.' These and other such measures could help forestall an Iranian bomb and stem the proliferation cascade in the Middle East that this agreement is likely to trigger."